Moving forward.

Over the past 6 weeks, our team has had the opportunity to evaluate the prevalent social issue in Vancouver of drug addiction. We started out by identifying some key factors and causes of the issue itself before thinking about and evaluating solutions. Addiction is a major issue interrelated to a number of other deep and complex social issues. We made contact with a significant number of individuals from the addiction community and beyond to further develop our ideas and gain valuable input and insight. We were fortunate enough to be able to connect with a number of knowledgeable and influential individuals on this issue and to garner a great deal of support from professionals we spoke to.

Actually putting our solution into practice will require commitment, both time wise and financially, that we have decided are not capable of handling ourselves. We have presented our project plan to SFU Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) to be evaluated and we hope that SIFE can take the groundwork we have laid out and create a meaningful and effective event utilizing their existing contacts and resources. We are also awaiting indication from The Economist on sponsorship and funding, under their ‘Think Differently” marketing campaign, for which we approached them with a title sponsorship offer.

It is our hope that the connections we have made in the addiction community and beyond in collaboration with the connections of SIFE can be utilized to achieve the goals of our event with the assistance and guidance from those most experienced in creating meaningful and productive case competition and dialogue events.

Learning the ropes.

Over the past weeks, we have had the opportunity to examine and evaluate a significant social issue in Vancouver- addiction. Through our work, we have had the opportunity to speak with a number of people actively involved in this issue and have learned a great deal.

Ben : At first look it is easy to brush off as “their fault” or “their choice”. I myself, regretfully, have taken this outlook in the past…

Matt : It would be very difficult to point out the exact reasons for ineffective approaches since addiction is a very complicated matter, but I think a lack of general education is one of the reason…

Nelson : There is no one solution that will please everyone. Its not about about coming up with a compromise, but rather to help put things into perspective…

Sunny : Education is a powerful tool, as it helps to reflect on the reality and reduce some stigmatization…

losing ground, gaining support

A discussion with Alan Campbell, Director of Mental Health and Addiction Services for the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). VIHA offers a range of services for addiction and their priority is providing appropriate accessible services for adults with serious mental illness and/or addictions. (Note: the views expressed here are of Alan Campbell’s, and do not reflect the views of the Vancouver Island Health Authority). 

As someone who works day-to-day addressing addiction and drug use, Alan is in a unique position to provide us with some insightful feedback on our social issue, drug policy, and our proposed solution. Addiction and drug use is a greater issue than treatment and prevention, it is about drug policy and how we deal with drugs overall; how we respond to this issue will affect addiction. Alan stated that this social issue is a ‘critical public policy issue’ an went further to say that ‘engaging the general public and providing clear information about addiction and substance abuse’ is vital. The hope is that this would ultimately result in a greater support for alternative and more effective approaches to dealing with the issue.

In our society at this time, we are facing an increase in drug use and there are views that we are ‘losing ground’ on drug availability, use, and addiction. Campbell stated his belief that the illegal drug industry has evolved more rapidly, with greater funding than the public policies that we have put in place to combat it. There is a sense of exasperation among people who work in the addiction community that they cannot alone tackle the problem and this creates a welcoming of alternative ideas from outside the community. 

The combination of feelings and evidence this presents a opportune time to step back from the issue, examine what is not working and look at what we can be doing differently to address this social issue. An open dialogue event such as the one we are proposing we hope would do just that. Addiction and drug use affects all areas of society and unfortunately, according to Campbell, not all groups affected are included in policy making. A discussion and generation of policy alternatives would have to include and represent everyone.

Campbell said the key issue that must be addressed is that most people do not understand what addiction is and what it is not- this is important to understand as it might allow people to address policy in a more effective way. In particular, I would argue this applies to policy makers at higher levels. They are often not exposed to the day-to-day consequences of addiction and drug use that communities are, however, policy makers often fall short of including these types of groups when designing policy. An event such as ours would need to present facts and evidence describing why exactly addiction is a problem and what impact it has on the various areas of society- a goal we would hope to achieve with our diverse panel of speakers.

Speaking about business students in particular, Campbell offered some reassurance that we do have something to contribute to the policy discussion and extended this to other groups outside the realm of addiction. Though we are fairly uninvolved and outside the addiction community, this may be an asset as we can see the issue from a different angle than someone surrounded by it. When you are do deeply involved in an issue, particularly addiction, you tend to become very passionate and your emotions can weigh in on the decision making process. Discussing addiction as outsiders and from more of an economical viewpoint as business student may provide some interesting ideas on alternatives; particularly in Vancouver where drug addiction is a visible issue. Campbell also went on to stress the importance of the commerce side of society to be informed and involved in social issues as it ultimately affects them as well.

Politicizing Addiction

A conversation about drug policy in federal politics with Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East since 1997. She is the Deputy Leader of the NDP, and has served as NDP House Leader since 2003. Libby is also the federal NDP Spokesperson for Drug Policy Reform and Solicitation Laws. 

Libby began by expressing her enthusiasm for an event as the one we are proposing and her interest in being a part of it. Being directly involved in policy making as well as he role as spokesperson for drug policy reform, Libby was able to provide some interesting insight on drug policy in Canada. She echoed the opinions of others we have spoken to in a variety of other roles: that prohibition as a policy for dealing with drugs is overall ineffective and costly. 

Libby was particularly supportive of our event focusing on the business aspect of drug policy, both through the participants being mainly business students and approaching the issue of drug policy reform from an economic angle. According to Davies, there is an argument to be made that in addition to the hardships prohibition as a policy has created for human beings, it has also been overwhelmingly costly to our economy. She pointed to publications from such business focused organizations as the Fraser Institute on the true costs of prohibition. Areas of the community such as business and political realms may begin to see the need for policy alternatives if they could understand that those alternatives will actually benefit the economy instead of hurt it. 

Davies stressed the importance of addressing addiction and drug policy as causing a variety of health issues, but also looking at it as an economic problem overall. Asking, ‘what does prohibition mean from a business perspective?’. It is important for the business community to realize that current drug policy under prohibition is both ineffective and costly for our economy. This is also a statement that is important for policy makers at the federal level to believe; changing how we approach drugs and addiction must come from higher levels to be truly transformational. Drug policy change is likely to come about much easier if those formulating policy can understand the costs associated with how we currently address this issue. 

The fact that our event will be predominantly students of business background suggests an importance of stressing this in addition to the other inefficiencies of prohibition. Perhaps new wave of business community members like those who would participate in our event could benefit from exposure to both the health and economic costs of current drug policy and decide for themselves if an alternative approach is needed.

Economic Drain

A discussion with Donald MacPherson, creator of Vancouver’s Four Pillar Drug Strategy to reduce drug related harm in the city. The approach is a coordinated, comprehensive approach that balances public order and public health in order to create a safer, healthier community. (Also see previous post)

Given Donald’s extensive experience with the issue of drug use, policy, and addressing addiction, speaking with him regarding our ideas was an excellent opportunity to receive valuable input. A really interesting point that Donald made was that cities have quite a unique opportunity to inform and shape drug policy from higher levels of government. Cities are experiencing the issue of addiction/drug use on a day-to-day level and and observing the consequences of use that federal policy makers do not observe. Unfortunately, drug policy development often does not include representation from municipal levels of government, which is a tragedy as they have much to offer.

Given this, change in opinion and the movement to reform drug policy must really come from cities and lower levels of government. Drug policy transformation must follow from changes in policy at the Federal level, which starts by transforming the way we look at drugs and addiction. Part of the resistance to abandoning prohibition is the stigma associated with users- whereby any policy that is compassionate is just feeding their addiction. According to Donald, society must first come out of denial about the extent of drug use in our city. Collaboration between all areas of society and levels of government is needed for policy transformation to become a reality, and its critical that users are included in policy development.

Speaking directly about the business community, the perspective of people in business toward drugs and addiction must change. Business people need to understand the economic and social costs associated with prohibition to understand that perhaps an alternative approach will be better socially and economically for all of society. Dialogue is needed between all facets of society for this to be realized. 

When I asked Donald what he felt was critical to include in an event such as the one we are proposing, he had some interesting suggestions. An inclusive dialogue between all areas of society that must include research people to inform the dialogue with a certain amount of scientific evidence. The dialogue itself should be just that, and not a debate as they tend to become largely ineffective for exploring alternative ideas. Exploration of a variety of perspectives would lead to a greater sharing and creativity overall.

Students for Change

The Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP) is a national youth and student network providing the necessary education and resources to empower chapters formed by youth and students to work on substance use issues facing their community. Chapters engage in activities such as peer and public education, drug policy reform and harm reduction projects. CSSDP specifically advocates for drug policies that are scientifically studied and proven effective in decreasing the negative impacts of drug use on individuals and communities.

SFU has their own chapter headed by Jeremy Janz, a current SFU student. We were informed of Jeremy’s role in CSSDP at SFU by Mark Haden from Vancouver Coastal Health, however, making contact with Jeremy has been difficult and is ongoing. They have also seen considerable success in generating interest in their cause among students using existing social networking platforms. What is most interesting and related to our goals is that CSSDP is completely operated by students for the purpose of combating the stigma associated with drug use and changing views of youth towards drugs to advocate for more effective drug policy.

In October 2009, the CSSDP will be holding their annual conference in Vancouver hosted specifically by the SFU and UBC chapters. Called Blueprints for Beyond Prohibition, this year’s conference will build on the 2008 conference examining 100 years of failure of prohibition and present, explore and debate existing alternatives to drug prohibition in Canada. It will bring together students, community members, drug users, politicians, law enforcement, researchers, clinicians and legal experts for an informed, collaborative and critical ‘visioning’ of regulated systems for currently-illegal substances. As this is very similar to what we are hoping to do, it would be beneficial for us to get in contact with CSSDP about a possible collaboration. 

We are hoping to use our event to generate interest in the social issue of addiction among SFU/UBC Business students in particular to drive participation in the CSSDP’s event. By seeding interest in drug policy alternatives at our event, we can direct participants toward furthering their policy ideas and putting their ideas on business’ contribution to solving social issues by being apart of Blueprints for Beyond Prohibition. Through their involvement, the CSSDP can garner membership from our participant base and encourage participation in their event.

This is mutually beneficial for both our event and the exposure and direct membership and participation for the CSSDP. We are also evaluating the possibility of awarding the top teams from our event paid enrollment in the October event hosted by the CSSDP, as decided by our panel of speakers. This would provide an incentive for participants in our business event to take their envisions for policy alternatives to a much larger and broader audience.

A diverse network of contacts.

A discussion with Ann Livingston, Executive board member of Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU), a non-profit society funded by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority as part of their harm reduction strategy. They are a group of users and former users who work to improve the lives of people who use illicit drugs through user-based peer support and education.

At first discussion of the aspects surrounding our event, Ann suggested that business and people involved in social issues is “a marriage long overdue”. There is often a misconception of pitting business and social work against each other, when if fact the collaboration of them may be an effective and worthwhile means of addressing social issues. Ann went as far to suggest that business has a fair amount to contribute to addressing social issues such as addiction and drugs. 

Ann described a push by libertarians for a free market approach to drugs and to deal with the associated affects including crime and addiction and suggested a common view that drug prohibition as a policy for drugs has to end. Despite this view, however, a shift away from drug prohibition policies is not happening due to a lack of collaboration. In order for a fundamental shift in drug policy to come about, it requires a collaboration between all parties affected- business, libertarians, students, politicians, research and drug professionals, addiction workers- to transform the way we look at drugs and create the momentum necessary for change.

When asked if VANDU would be an organization interested in being involved in such an event and providing users interested in being a part of the educational panel, Ann referred to the organization’s goals and beliefs. These include assisting in facilitation of open dialogue between users and other groups in the community in order to transform attitudes toward addiction and drug use and developing a diverse network of contacts for furthering the discussion on policy alternatives.

From VANDU’s website regarding the purpose of the organization: “VANDU’s primary objective is to increase capacity of people who use illicit drugs to live healthy and productive lives. The purposes of the society are to improve the quality of life for people who use illicit drugs, to develop local networks and coalitions of informed and empowered people who will work to ensure public policies and practices are favourable to people who use illicit drugs, to keep informed and to inform the public concerning the social, economic, health and treatment issues related to the use of illicit drugs.”

Its is reassuring to know that we have an organization with parallel goals to assist and guide us in accomplishing ours.

Broad Exposure

A discussion with Mark Haden, a supervisor at Vancouver Coastal Health, a published author on drug policy in Canadian and international journals, an advocate of the failure of drug prohibition, a public educator on drugs and drug policy, and a member of the Keeping the Door Open (KDO) coalition. 

Mark is an advocate of drug policy reform with a number of publications on policy alternatives, and as such was very interested in being involved in our event. He provided a great deal of resources to assist in policy and in organizing and facilitating discussion at a dialogue such as the one we are proposing. As a member of the KDO coalition, Mark participates in open dialogue on drug policy and other drug related issues in Vancouver, much like the event we are hoping to launch for students.

To begin with, Mark described our dialogue event as ‘fascinating challenge’, whereas developing drug policy alternatives is no easy task. However, Mark welcomed the idea of ‘thinking outside the box’ and utilizing a collaboration of people for discussing policy alternatives especially those who may not commonly be exposed to an issue such as a addiction. In order to have the creative and innovative discussion necessary, we must have a variety of individuals speak about this issue and expose participants to a variety of views. The idea of collaboration is essential to the development of such novel alternatives. 

In exposing participants to such a variety of views however, it was recommended that we steer the discussion away from a debate format. As Mark suggested, the debate format often quickly narrows the discussion to only those views and people will tend to be less creative. Using more of an open dialogue approach to looking at addiction and drug policy will allow for a broader range of thought; people will be much more creative and apt to explore the edges of what is possible in approaching this topic. It was also suggested that the discussion not focus on the failures of current or previous policies, but strictly on the creative aspect of developing an alternative method. Perhaps our event discussion can focus specifically on foundations of a new model for drug policy and the best approach for an alternative.

A really great suggestion for recognizing the views of the whole group of participants was to use an activity that asks all the participants specific questions on how a specific drug should be controlled for a variety of drugs. This engaging exercise would create a collective model and help promote discussion in the smaller group exercise involving the development of policy alternatives.

Meaningly Inclusive Dialogue

A discussion with Mark L. Winston, a Fellow in the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University and director of the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue. 

The Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue (UGSID) at SFU is a course that each semester focuses student education on public issues through an intensive learning experience involving dialogue. From their website: “The Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue addresses what we believe is the principal challenge for contemporary education: to inspire students with a sense of civic responsibility, encourage their passion to improve Canadian society, and develop innovative intellectual tools for effective problem solving.” 

Each semester, the Undergraduate Semester in dialogue course organizes and executes public dialogues regarding the issue of focus. I spoke with Mark about our idea for an addiction dialogue event and aspects that make dialogue on social issues effective and meaningful. 

To begin with, our event must have clear goals. Who are we trying to educate and about what in particular? As our event is likely to include primarily business student, it was suggested that it may be valuable to look at it keeping this in mind. Business students often do not get the exposure to social issues in their post secondary education so addressing this issue in our event may be critical- educating students to transform their way of thinking about addition and how it is related to them. Asking questions like what is is that business can contribute to social issues, in particular, addiction? In what way has business contributed to the failure of drug policies?

To have meaningful dialogue, the topic of discussion must be specific to provide participants with a clear idea of the issues and an attainable goal. Addiction and drug policy is a broad issue, so the topic of discussion at our event needs to be on a manageable level. We will need to focus on a specific set of policy issues and perhaps why they have been ineffective or effective. This will help to both emphasize the type of dialogue we are looking for at the event and provide a specific focus to direct the dialogue itself.

As this event will involve students with little professional knowledge or experience on the issue of addiction, the environment cannot be intimidating. Intimidation creates feelings of incapability of dealing with the issue and will deter from creativity and innovative ideas. We want to foster a creative and open environment where students will share ideas- as Mark said, the success of an event such as ours depends on the specific contribution of the students and not just lectures from professionals. 

Overall the dialogue must be ‘meaningfully inclusive’ where it includes, and even focuses on, those least powerful in the room. This includes students and others in the community who may not be professionals, but are affected by addiction in our community. A suggestion made was to begin the event with everyone sharing a story about how addiction has affected their lives in any way- a method that will help to create a collective compassion, that puts the participants all at the same level to collaborate on developing novel ideas. 

As as means of facilitating continuing discussion and possibly developing policy alternative suggestions through dialogue, I proposed the idea of partnering with the UGSID to have in a semester following our our event a semester course on the topic of addiction and drug policy. Students participating in our event would be exposed to the opportunity to further their interests in the social issue of addiction through participation in the UGSID. Three requirements were discussed: the budget, how the dialogue would be structured, and that a diverse set of individuals would need to participate for the dialogue to be meaningful (including professionals, community representatives, politicians, business community representatives, and addicts).

Transforming Ideas

We have been given the opportunity to examine and develop a novel, sustainable solution to a social problem in Vancouver and we have chosen the issue of drug addiction. Through our research on substance abuse and drug policy, an overwhelming trend among professionals and supported by scientific research appears to be the ineffectiveness of drug prohibition in addressing drug issues and addiction. However, alternatives to prohibition for drug policy are complex and difficult to develop due to the differing public opinions that exist and the stigma associated with drug use. Drug policy alternatives for prohibition is the innovative issue we are interested in focusing on. 

Although this topic has been debated through public discourse and other means before, it has rarely been done involving university students whom normally would avoid such a topic. Exposing business students to such an issue we hope will be an innovative approach to developing discussion and policy suggestions. Our hope is to develop a day long event that encompasses professional speakers on drug use and addiction to inform, teams of students presented with a case study involving drug policy, and a presentation of the ideas to the professional panel for evaluation in a case competition format.  

The overall goals of this event are to educate university students on the topics of drug policy and addiction. These individuals are this city and nations future policy makers and current voters. The hope is to both transform the way that they look at drugs and addiction, combat the stigma that is often associated with drug use, and give them a chance to develop and propose novel policy alternatives for a more unconventional topic in a creative way. We also hope to not only inform and educate, but develop innovative policy alternatives with the guidance of those who are professionally involved in topic. 

Through the use of a seminar and case competition model, we hope to first facilitate an informed exploration of the issues surrounding substance use and drug policy. This will be done though presentations from drug professionals in our community and an open discussion format. 

In order to foster an attractive event, we are currently exploring a few options. Students and university faculties, especially business, thrive on competitive events. Providing a case competition regarding a social issue that so largely affects our own community may provide a driving force for participation. Partnering this event with an existing SFU socially oriented club may also be beneficial for attracting a varied student base.

The increasing popularity of social innovation and social issues may play a role in increasing the attractiveness for students to want to get involved in their community and for organizations to get involved in such an event as a sponsor. Another option we are exploring is to partner this type of event with SFU Business faculty  which would provide some form of credit or recognition to students for their participation, such as a social innovation certificate.

Over the next few weeks, we will be asking some critical questions exploring aspects of planning, coordinating, and funding an event such as this and evaluating its effectiveness in addressing the social issue of addiction through consultation with various professionals and policy makers. We invite comments, criticisms, and suggestions regarding our ideas as we envision novel solutions to such a prevalent social issue.